Account of the case

According to the notification of loss, the Insured working as a cleaner noted that the bunch of keys of five different premises cleaned were missing on 15 April 2025. According to the information given, the Customer was not aware where the keys had gone missing. Moreover, the keys did not carry any information on the addresses, nor do they contain identification data that would allow for an outsider to locate the respective buildings or apartments. The Customer has made several visits to the lost-property office to make enquiries about the keys which have, however, not been found. The buildings associated with the lost keys are located in Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa. The Customer claimed compensation from the business liability insurance of the cleaning business.

The Insurance Company refused to pay compensation. Based on the information obtained by the Insurance Company, the rekeying of the locks was not necessary to prevent an immediate risk whereby the expenses for the rekeying were not compensated by the general liability insurance held by the business. In case of a lost key, the property damage relates to the key itself.

The Insurer noted that the expenses incurred for the change or rekeying of the locks are, as a rule, not compensated. The general liability insurance can only cover the expenses if there is a concrete and immediate risk of the key held by a person who is not entitled to hold it, and as a consequence, the belongings of another party’s premises face an immediate risk. The Insurer also pointed out that the prevention of immediate risk means that the measures to safeguard the property are taken immediately or at least in one week from the moment that the loss of the key is detected.

The Insurer pointed out that according to the information given, the lost keys did not carry any identification data which would allow to define which buildings the keys are associated with. Moreover, there was no certainty as to where the keys were lost. The loss of the keys was noted on 15 April 2025 but the building owners had not taken any measures by 16 May 2025, so the keys had been lost for one month. Under such circumstances, the Insurer finds that there is no proof of the key being held by a person not entitled to have it. Therefore, the belongings in the premises or apartments were not at any immediate risk. For this reason, no compensation can be paid based on the general liability insurance.

The Insurer’s internal redress mechanism did not change this decision.

Customer demands and Insurance Company’s position

The Customer is dissatisfied and disappointed with the decision of the Insurance Company and requests that the Insurance Complaints Board issue a recommended solution in this case.

The Customer points out that they have upheld a customer relationship with the Insurance Company for several years and there has never been an outstanding claim to the Insurer. The Customer adds that they had already lost some cleaning contracts a few years ago due to the Insurer’s unfair and biased treatment. At that time, a design lighting fixture’s globe was broken during the cleaning work, with the Customer themselves paying the price of 254 euro. The Customer reported the damage to the Insurer which, however, refused compensation. The delay led to a situation where the party suffering the damage reported the case to their acquaintances in the same area, and as a result, all gave notice of their cleaning contracts with the Customer, and in the end, the Customer had to pay the damages from their own pocket.

The Customer reports that the current loss of the keys is a major case which is financially unsurmountable from the Customer’s point of view. The Customer adds that those suffering from the loss have pressured them to pay the expenses incurred for the loss, and some of them have replaced the locks and keys immediately. The rest of those suffering losses still wait for a solution in the case. The Customer points out that it is a fact that those suffering from loss are forced to change the locks and keys, irrespective of there being immediate risk or not, since it is a legal requirement that the keys must be returned in complete to the housing company or when the apartment is resold.  

The Customer further adds that they cannot understand how the Insurer can deny compensation even though they have paid the premiums for several years. According to the Customer, this is unfair since it is truly unreasonable to force them to have to take a loan to cover the cost of the loss even if they have a general liability insurance.

In the additional writ in reply to the Insurance Company’s response, the Customer further points out that the Insurer’s reply is unfair and deceitful. The Customer repeats that they have paid the Insurer for the general liability insurance for several years, precisely in view of situations like this. This is the time to obtain compensation and pay for the expenses incurred for the loss but the Insurance Company comes with excuses to avoid paying compensation.

The Customer adds that in the situation at hand, those who have suffered a loss pressurise them to pay all the expenses for the change of locks and keys since they are still afraid that someone somewhere can hold a key to their homes.

In its response, the Insurer has turned down the Customer’s claim for damages. The Insurer refers to the decision of 16 May 2025 and to the emails sent to the Customer on 26 June 205 and to FINE on 28 July 2025 and to the reasons presented therein, as well as to the additional information now obtained, still insisting that in the situation at hand, the apartments and buildings behind the keys have not been and are not threatened with any immediate danger or risk. Therefore, the expenses for eventual key or lock replacements will not be compensated on the basis of the general liability insurance.

The Insurer notes that the apartments with lost keys are five in total. The loss of keys was discovered on 15 April 2025, and according to the information obtained, inhabitants of two apartments had taken measures after this. For one apartment, a receipt of 24 April 2025 for the payment of € 59.85 made to a locksmith has been sent. However, the Insurer notes that the invoice does not itemise what the locksmith’s invoice comprises nor when the respective action has been taken. If the measures mentioned in the receipt of 24 April 2025 had been directly linked with the rekeying of the lock or the prevention of the lost key immediately after the loss, in the Insurer’s mind the share of this apartment could, at most, be acceptable as risk prevention and therefore the invoice of € 59.85 would qualify as compensable expenses.  Since the deductible of the insurance is € 600, the eventually compensable sum would still remain under the deductible of the insurance and thus no compensation could be paid for this part.

The Insurer adds that the changes in the lock system of the other apartment were made during June 2025. The measures were thus taken only after a good month after the loss of the keys. Taken also in consideration the fact that the keys did not contain any identification specifying the apartments, the Insurer insists on the fact that the apartment is question, or the belongings inside it, were not under the risk of immediate property damage as required by the Policy terms.

As to the three other apartments, the Insurer finds that – based on the information available as per mid-October 2025 – no changes of keys or lock rekeying were made, so the belongings in these apartments/buildings were no longer under immediate risk of loss.

Contractual terms and legislation

Under the Terms of the Business Liability Insurance, item 5.2.1., in addition to  the exclusions in General Conditions, General Liability does not cover following losses.

5.2.17 Loss of keys The costs resulting from the rekeying or replacing of locks due to the disappearance of a key or other comparable device which provides access to the premises of another party are compensated under the insurance as loss prevention expenses if it is evident that the key is in the possession of a party who has no right to it and, as a result of this, the other party’s property located in said premises is subject to immediate risk. The deductible for damage arising from the disappearance of keys is 25% of the total loss, however, no less than the amount of deductible stated in the policy document. The maximum amount of compensation for each insured event is 100 000 euro.

Under Section 32 Subsection 1 of the Insurance Contracts Act, when an insured event occurs or is imminent, the insured shall to the best of their ability seek to prevent or contain the bodily injury, damage to property or loss. If the injury, damage or loss has been caused by a third party, the insured shall take the necessary steps to retain the insurer's right vis-à-vis the liable party. The insured shall, if possible, comply with the guidelines issued by the insurer for the said purpose.

Under Section 61 of the Insurance Contracts Act, the insurer is liable to reimburse all reasonable costs arising from fulfilment of the duty of salvage referred to in section 32, even if the sum insured were exceeded.

Under the Damages Act (31 May 1974/412), Chapter 5 Section 5, damages for property damage shall cover the costs of repair of the damaged object, the other costs arising from the damage and the reduction in value or the value of a destroyed or lost object, and loss of income and maintenance.

Recommended solution

This case is about the Insurer’s obligation to compensate for the expenses incurred by the Customer for rekeying or replacement of locks based on the business liability insurance granted to the Customer as a result of the fact that the Customer has lost the keys to the premises cleaned.

According to the documents, the Customer has lost a bunch of keys with keys to five premises cleaned. The Customer finds they are liable to pay for the loss caused, requesting to be compensated for this based on their general liability insurance.

FINE notes that the case must be analysed from the perspective whether the expenses incurred for the replacement or rekeying of the locks must be compensated on the basis of the risk avoidance regarding the property protected by said locks, i.e., in terms of prevention costs of the immediate liability loss as per the General liability insurance Policy terms.  

Based on the information obtained, the locking system of one apartment was changed during June 2025. For another apartment, a receipt of 24 April 2025 for the payment of € 59.85 made to a locksmith has been sent to the Insured. There is no information as to what the locksmith’s invoice was comprising and when the  itemised measures were taken. In line with the information sent to FINE, no measures have been taken in the three other apartments to change or rekey the locks.

FINE finds that the Terms of the  Insurance Company’s General Liability Insurance include a separate provision on the compensability of the loss prevention costs related to key loss damages which are the responsibility of the Insured. Under Clause 5.2.17 of the Policy Terms, the costs resulting from the rekeying or replacing of locks due to the disappearance of a key or are compensated under the insurance as loss prevention expenses if it is evident that the key is in the possession of a party who has no right to it and, as a result of this, the other party’s property located in said premises is subject to immediate risk.

The compensability requirements in the Policy Terms regarding the expenses of rekeying expenses, are mainly compatible with the general requirements of compensability caused by salvage responsibility as per the Insurance Contracts Act.

In its established appraisal practice, FINE’s Insurance Complaints Board has found that as concerns the loss limitation or prevention measures, to be compensated by the Policy, are – as a rule – indispensable, exceptional and rapid measured in sudden or immediately threatening loss situations to protect the life and health of persons or the property from loss or extended loss.

In cases of loss of keys, the immediateness of risk has been assessed, on the one hand, in view of the key loss circumstances, and on the other hand, based on the measures taken by the injured party after the loss of the key.

As a premise, the Claimant is responsible for showing that the requirements for the compensability of the loss, as set in the Policy Terms, are met.

Based on the information FINE has been provided with, in the case at hand it is not known, as told by the Customer, when and in which area the keys were lost. Neither does the lost bunch of keys contain, according to the Customer, any such identifying data which would allow each key to be directly associated with any specific building or apartment.

FINE furthermore finds that, based on the information obtained on the case, it cannot be deducted that the keys would, in actual fact, ended up in the hands of any outsider. For this part, FINE refers to the Policy Terms, Clause 5.2.17 where the requirement of the compensability of loss prevention expenses in cases of loss of keys is  that it is evident that the key is in the possession of a party who has no right to it. In FINE’s view, such requirement cannot, in the case at hand, be seen to have been met since no such aspects have been found that would cause credible suspicion of an outsider having gained access to the dropped bunch of keys.

In the documentation FINE has been provided with in the case at hand, there is nothing to indicate that the Customer or the owners of the buildings or apartments would have, immediately upon the loss of the keys, taken actions to protect against the risk of loss. Under the Section 32 of the Insurance Contracts Act, such measures taken to prevent an immediately threatening loss would be, for example, the organisation of temporary guarding of the real property or the rapid rekeying of the locks. In the case at hand, the locking of one apartment was changed only in June 2025 while there is no information as to any action having been taken as concerns the other cleaning sites.

Considering the above, FINE finds that it has not be proven that the loss of the keys would have, in the case at hand, caused the immediate threat of liability risk as per the Policy Terms, Clause 5.2.17 and the Insurance Contracts Act, Section 32. Therefore, FINE finds that the Insurance Company is not, based on the Policy Terms, liable to compensate for any expenses caused by potential locking system changes under the General Liability Insurance.

Final outcome

FINE does not recommend a change in the case.

FINE
The Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau

Head of Division Hanén
Presenting Officer Hyytiäinen